Approval likely for fence
‘‘I think it’s really, really sad that a good project like this has had a kick in the guts . . .’’ ECan chairman David Bedford
A ratepayer-funded fence planned for a sprawling high country station is likely to go ahead, after the decision to approve it was reviewed amid criticism from environmental groups.
The managers of Flock Hill station, a farm near Cass in Canterbury, sought public funding for a 6-kilometre fence on the property. It would block off the entire length of Cave Stream and a 35ha wetland.
Supporters said the project would protect an ecologically sensitive area on private land and was an example of a landowner going above and beyond their obligations. But critics argued the fence, mostly funded by ratepayers, would enable intensive farming on the station.
Flock Hill is a popular tourist destination, and was the location for the climactic battle scene in the 2005 film The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
It is leased by a group of wealthy American investors, and the University of Canterbury owns the land. The wetlands have been deemed regionally significant and contain rare species and threatened habitat.
The fencing project was awarded $44,000 from the Selwyn/ Waihora zone committee last month as part of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) Immediate Steps programme, which funds biodiversity initiatives.
The decision had since undergone a review by ECan staff, who have recommended the zone committee once again confirm its decision to fund the fence.
Critics argued the station had signalled its intent to expand its farming operation.
In 2016, the lessees applied to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to buy out the remaining 10 per cent of shares, allowing it to pursue a ‘‘dramatically revised method of farming’’, the OIO said.
The owners had forecast ‘‘significant improvements’’ to the station’s productive potential by transforming from a livestock to a pasture-based business.
They recently applied for consent from Selwyn District Council to clear vegetation ahead of intensification. As part of that application, the stream would need to be fenced off. The consent application had since been withdrawn.
Conservation groups said it amounted to subsidising a wealthy farm’s intent to intensify, but ECan chairman David Bedford said he was stunned by the controversy. ‘‘This is a great project, in my view,’’ he said.
‘‘This is a big area we’re protecting and to then hear from some of these groups that it’s all about intensification . . . I was quite bewildered.’’
He said the leaseholders were going above and beyond the rules to protect the area, including a setback from the stream of around 100 metres in some places. If the leaseholders chose to intensify, they would have to go through a separate consent process.
‘‘It’s a special piece of Canterbury and it needs protecting, but because it’s on private land, our ability to do anything about that is driven by the landowner,’’ Bedford said. ‘‘I think it’s really, really sad that a good project like this has had a kick in the guts like it’s had by people who claim to be concerned about environmental issues. All these sorts of incidents just push landowners away from getting involved in these processes.’’
The project underwent a biodiversity assessment and received a relatively high score of 31 out of 39. The score was bumped to 32 out of 39 upon review.
ECan senior ecology scientist Duncan Gray, who wrote the assessment, appeared to support it. ‘‘This could be seen as a key project that addresses water quality in a very sensitive catchment,’’ he wrote.
However, ECan land resources scientist Dr Philip Grove was sceptical, and wrote that ‘‘given planned land use intensification within the wider catchment, there are some questions as to whether this project will actually deliver improved ecological outcomes’’.
After the funding was approved, Grove wrote in an email to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff that he had recommended the project be turned down, and was ‘‘frustrated’’ it was approved.